Mieke Rijken1,2, James Close3, Juliane Menting1, Manon Lette4,5,6, Annerieke Stoop4,5,7, Nick Zonneveld8, Simone R de Bruin4,9, Helen Lloyd3, Monique Heijmans1. 1. Nivel (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Health and Social Management, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 3. School of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK. 4. Centre for Nutrition Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 5. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC - VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. SIGRA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Scientific Centre for Transformation in Care and Welfare (Tranzo), University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 8. Vilans (National Centre of Expertise for Long-Term Care), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Health and Wellbeing, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Countries are adapting their health and social care systems to better meet the needs of growing populations with (multiple) chronic conditions. To guide this process, assessment of the 'patient experience' is becoming increasingly important. For this purpose, the Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) was developed in the United Kingdom, and translated into several languages. AIM: This study aimed to assess the internal and construct validity of the Dutch P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Adults with chronic conditions (N = 1098) completed the Dutch P3CEQ, measures of health literacy and patient activation, and reported the use and perceived quality of care services. Data analysis included Principal Component and reliability analysis (internal validity), analysis of variance and Student's T-tests (construct validity). RESULTS: The two-component structure found was pretty much the same as in the UK validation study. Sociodemographic correlates also resembled those found in the United Kingdom. Women, persons who were less educated, less health-literate or less activated experienced less person-centred coordinated care. P3CEQ scores correlated positively with general practitioner performance scores and quality ratings of the total care received. CONCLUSION: The Dutch P3CEQ is a valid instrument to assess the experience of person-centred coordinated care among people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Awareness of inequity and more attention to communication skills in professional training are needed to ensure that care professionals better recognize the needs of women, lower educated or less health-literate persons, and improve their experiences of care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: The P3CEQ has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders. Eighteen persons with (multiple) chronic conditions participated as patient representatives and codesign experts in (four) codesign workshops. Other patient representatives participated in cognitive testing of the English-language instrument. The usability of the P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of older persons has been examined by interviewing 228 older European service users, including 13 living in the Netherlands, as part of the SUSTAIN project. More than a thousand persons with chronic conditions participated in the validation study of the Dutch P3CEQ.
BACKGROUND: Countries are adapting their health and social care systems to better meet the needs of growing populations with (multiple) chronic conditions. To guide this process, assessment of the 'patient experience' is becoming increasingly important. For this purpose, the Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) was developed in the United Kingdom, and translated into several languages. AIM: This study aimed to assess the internal and construct validity of the Dutch P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Adults with chronic conditions (N = 1098) completed the Dutch P3CEQ, measures of health literacy and patient activation, and reported the use and perceived quality of care services. Data analysis included Principal Component and reliability analysis (internal validity), analysis of variance and Student's T-tests (construct validity). RESULTS: The two-component structure found was pretty much the same as in the UK validation study. Sociodemographic correlates also resembled those found in the United Kingdom. Women, persons who were less educated, less health-literate or less activated experienced less person-centred coordinated care. P3CEQ scores correlated positively with general practitioner performance scores and quality ratings of the total care received. CONCLUSION: The Dutch P3CEQ is a valid instrument to assess the experience of person-centred coordinated care among people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Awareness of inequity and more attention to communication skills in professional training are needed to ensure that care professionals better recognize the needs of women, lower educated or less health-literate persons, and improve their experiences of care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: The P3CEQ has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders. Eighteen persons with (multiple) chronic conditions participated as patient representatives and codesign experts in (four) codesign workshops. Other patient representatives participated in cognitive testing of the English-language instrument. The usability of the P3CEQ to capture the experience of person-centred coordinated care of older persons has been examined by interviewing 228 older European service users, including 13 living in the Netherlands, as part of the SUSTAIN project. More than a thousand persons with chronic conditions participated in the validation study of the Dutch P3CEQ.
Authors: Helen M Lloyd; Mark Pearson; Rod Sheaff; Sheena Asthana; Hannah Wheat; Thava Priya Sugavanam; Nicky Britten; Jose Valderas; Michael Bainbridge; Louise Witts; Debra Westlake; Jane Horrell; Richard Byng Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2017-11-22
Authors: Helen Lloyd; James Close; Hannah Wheat; Jane Horrell; Thavapriya Sugavanam; Benjamin Fosh; Jose M Valderas Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: James Close; Ben Fosh; Hannah Wheat; Jane Horrell; William Lee; Richard Byng; Michael Bainbridge; Richard Blackwell; Louise Witts; Louise Hall; Helen Lloyd Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jany Rademakers; Jessica Nijman; Lucas van der Hoek; Monique Heijmans; Mieke Rijken Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Simone R de Bruin; Annerieke Stoop; Jenny Billings; Kai Leichsenring; Georg Ruppe; Nhu Tram; María Gabriela Barbaglia; Eliva A Ambugo; Nick Zonneveld; Gerli Paat-Ahi; Henrik Hoffmann; Usman Khan; Viktoria Stein; Gerald Wistow; Manon Lette; Aaltje P D Jansen; Giel Nijpels; Caroline A Baan Journal: Int J Integr Care Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 5.120
Authors: Mieke Rijken; James Close; Juliane Menting; Manon Lette; Annerieke Stoop; Nick Zonneveld; Simone R de Bruin; Helen Lloyd; Monique Heijmans Journal: Health Expect Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.318
Authors: Heidi Turon; Breanne Hobden; Kristy Fakes; Matthew Clapham; Anthony Proietto; Rob Sanson-Fisher Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: May Ingvild Volungholen Sollid; Marit Slaaen; Signe Danielsen; Øyvind Kirkevold Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2022-09-15 Impact factor: 2.257